tor, merely for using "thou and thee," and for wearing their hats.* And in another place, he speaks of "the righteous end of the war, for liberty and law." To these, we may add the names of Penn and his kinsman, the amiable Pennington; they certainly were not decidedly opposed to defensive war.‡ Penn reaped a goodly harvest from his father's military and naval glory. If he had been, in principle, decidedly opposed to war, his conscience must have been ill at ease from the reflection, that all his wealth and luxuries were the purchase of military services. But his conscience was at ease; he approved of his father's deeds, he defended his office and station; he did approve of defensive war in the following words: "he was employed," says he, respecting his father, admiral Penn, "he was employed in the preservation of the country from the rapes and spoils of foreigners."§ But after the restoration, when they could no longer indulge the hope of the downfall of Episcopacy, they shielded themselves behind the principle of non-resistance. And, as a society, they have advocated it to this day. 1 But there have been some collisions between their theory and their practice. When Philadelphia was young, the magistracy was entirely in the hands of the Friends; its port could boast of only one sloop. A band of pirates coming up the river, carried off the sloop. What did the society do? The faith and constancy of the London Quakers, never met with such a trial. It is an easy matter to be virtuous where there are no temptations. Did the society become confessors and martyrs to their principle? Verily, no! Their magistracy issued commissions; they raised an armed band; they retook their sloop, and made the banditti prisoners. It is curious, to see how the historians of the society, wriggle and twist, under the difficult digestion of this morsel of their history. They admit the fact, that the sloop was forcibly * See p. 5, 6. anct. edit. See also Bugg's Pict. p. 50. Snake in the Grass, p. 210. and edit. 2. p. 207 and 208. Fox's West answering the North, p. 16. and 102. and Snake, &c. p. 221. and edit. 2. p. 218. Penn, vol. i. p. 146. and Pennington, vol. i. 227. His "Address to the Army." See Penn's Project for securing the peace of Europe: He admits the retaining of "forces," &c. Sect. 4, 5, 9, in vol. ii. p. 841, 842. § Vol. ii. p. 451. taken away, and that it was recovered. But they pretend that no arms were used; that there was no fighting.* This contradicts the account given by men of probity, and who had access to know all the truth. And besides, it is highly improbable. Can any man believe, that a strong banditti, who had possession of the sloop in the river, would be moved by the sight of their pursuers, to sit down and hear a Quaker sermon; and that they would be instantaneously moved to grant their petitions, to restore them the sloop, and submit their necks, like good hearted citizens, to the sentence of the law? Pirates never possessed such sensibility, nor such disinterested love of good order!‡ The government of Pennsylvania had, by an act of William and Mary, been taken out of the hands of Penn. It was, on his petition, restored to him, on certain conditions. These were, that he should secure and defend the place: that he should send 80 soldiers to Albany, when called for, to aid in the war against the Indians: or find money to pay that number. To these conditions he acceded.§ In A. D. 1701, Penn, in his speech to the assembly of this state, exhorts them to take measures for their defence. He laid before them the king's letter, demanding money to aid in carrying on the war against the Indians of New York. Penn recommended that the sum be granted by the assembly.|| In the year 1764, when the affairs of the Paxton volunteers agitated the public mind, the Quakers of Philadelphia manifested this spirit of Penn. They opposed the measures of those who ⚫ wished to treat with the "Paxton boys." They urged, "that they had force sufficient to repel them, or even to kill them."¶ *Gough. iii. p. 341. † See Keith's Appeal, and the Reply of the Society. See also the "Snake," edit. 2. and p. 201. See another case: the recovery of a ship, commanded by a Quaker, from the Turks. Sewel, vol. ii. book vii. pp. 74, 80. See the letter from Philadelphia, dated 1695, published in London while Penn was there. Leslie in the "Snake," &c. appeals to it. p. 241, or p. 237. edit. 2. Vol. i. p. 146, &c. See The Quaker Unmasked," p. 7. no. 1007. Duod. Tract. 7. Philad. Library, and a book called" a Trumpet Sounded out of the Wilderness of America." See a MS. in Philad. Libr. no. 1413, vol. i. quarto. p. 23. Y. Their warlike preparations, which are remembered in this city to this day, and which I have heard detailed by the most respectable citizens, evinced a determination to carry their purposes into effect. But the favourable issue of a treaty, prevented the Quakers from resisting and killing these hot headed volunteers. And in different periods, those members of the society who were chosen representatives in the state legislature, or in congress, have, at the call of their country, voted for war measures.* In fine, only one thing has saved the existence of the society. They have had their brave fellow-citizens to fight in their defence. And one thing has saved the existence of this article of their faith. The government of Pennsylvania was taken out of their hands. Had they possessed the chair of state, and the offices of the magistracy in that great commonwealth, there would not have been; this day, a Quaker who would advocate the principle of non-resistance. They would either have surrendered the state to an invading enemy, or have advocated, by martial deeds, the lawfulness of defensive war. Thus the society owe their existence, political, to the advocates of defensive war. But for them, as Voltaire said, "they had been devoured and annihilated." § 25. The Friends have been a divided people. The fanaticism of Milner, Naylor, and Toldervy created serious troubles. Those Liberales, who, pursuing exclusively the dictates of "the spirit," undervalued the Holy Bible, created still more. These arose, by fair consequence, out of the principles of the society. The fanatics only reduced into practice, by a daring hand, what the society held in theory about a real Christ in every man. The establishment of their discipline produced a schism, which, as far as I can trace in their history, is perpetuated to this day. Fox * In 1674, see "Quaker Unmasked," p. 9. and in 1815, the member from Germantown voted for the war measures. These may have been expelled. But this shows what their wise men will do, when brought into collision with their duty as citizens. In A. D. 1741, Samuel Chew, a Quaker, advocated, from the bench, the doctrine of self-defence. See a curious MS. no. 1413, in the Philad. Libr. p. 2. 3. W. volume i. quarto. See his defence also in Pennsyl. Gazet, no. 690. † See Rathbone's Narrative. instituted their form of ecclesiastical government, not under authority derived from the Holy Scriptures, but "by the counsel and power of God;"* and the yearly meeting of Ireland, so late as A. D. 1802, recognized this divine right of their government.f The party who opposed Fox insisted that they had, in common with their brethren, the infallible guide in their bosom ; and they could not be subjected to any discipline. The Foxites insisted, on the other hand, that the spirit in the individual ought to submit to the spirit and universal wisdom of the society: the other party replied," you tell us that services done without the motion of the spirit are accursed; and you condemn us when we have not only no motion for this, but a positive impulse of the spirit against it." The female meetings for discipline were another source of bitter contention.|| A strong party opposed them as utterly impertinent. They denounced, in strong terms, the innovation of petticoat church government and female popes: they were formally excommunicated, and in their turn they undauntingly hurled their anathema at the heads of their opposers: they mutually employed the most abusive terms: "they were impostors and demons." "It was Judas and the Jews against Christ:" and as a witty author,** a cotemporary, remarked, “both parties being persons of honour, we ought to believe both." A. D. 1661.—A violent dissention arose in the society respecting the orthodox use of the hat. Every Quaker must have heard of Muckalow and his book " the spirit of the hat." It appeared in defence of sitting covered in time of prayer: for why not then as well as during the other parts of worship! Penn entered the lists against this hero of the hat; he reminded him that he had once approved of the custom of the society, and had tasted "comfort from prayers that came through an uncovered head:" and forthwith denounced him as convicted of heretical pravity. The party who were drawn up under the banner of " the spirit of the hat,” issued their manifesto that" what they did was by immediate inspiration." * Jour. ii. p. 85, 215, &c. † Rath. Nar. p. 12. See the Quaker "Barbadoes Judgment,” quoted in “Snake in the Grass," p. 68, edit. 3. Penn ii. p. 539, and Hick's Repl. Dial. p. 64. ** Leslie. Perot, the leader of the van, " had received a command from the Lord of heaven and earth to war against-taking off the hat;" and in opposing him, therefore, they were opposing the spirit. Penn and his party replied that "the Lord had given to the church" (he meant the great body of the Friends,) an infallible spirit to discern spirits; and as they had discerned and judged them, they had justly cast them out. To this, they replied, that "as the light within was the perfect and sufficient guide to each; as Penn made the body of the society to bear sway over the light in each; therefore, not the light within but the body was become the Quaker's rule." How was such a dispute to be settled? Each of the parties was equally inspired; each professed to be the favourite of heaven. "Hic labor, hoc opus est." A grand meeting was summoned." Prayers were made with weighty groans and tremblings, that the Lord would break forth among them, in a signal manner." In all ordinary cases, the rule of Horace would have been religiously acted upon. "Ne Deus intersit nisi dignus vindice nodus." But here were two inspired bodies vehemently contending-whether the hat should be put off, or whether the hat should be put on, during prayers. Their cries were heard; their spirit interfered; "he rent through the meeting;" both sides were greatly humbled; " and many with such bodily tremblings, as (it may well be credited) filled the beholders with astonishment, declared from the mouth of the Lord against the 'spirit of the hat.'" Penn and his party prevailed, and a decree was issued in the following words: "It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, in the performance of solemn public prayer to the Lord, to pull off our hats," &c.: and as this practice is dedicated to divine service, it must not be prostituted to human uses. "Quid dignum tanto feret hic promissor hiatu? HOR. These disputes issued in a rupture. Hence the two rival so * See Rich's "Epist. to the seven churches, A. D. 1680." Bugg's Pict. of Quakerism, p. 263. Sixty-s y-seven country Quakers were pitted against sixty-six Quakers of London. See also Penn ii. 189, 207, 208, 209, and 774, edit. fol. 1726. "Snake," p. 71, ed. 2.-and "the Spirit of the Hat," p. 11-and its "Defence." The decree was issued in the words of Penn above recited. See vol. ii. p. 207 of his works, folio. |